The anti-boycott bill that passed the Knesset yesterday—which makes it illegal to call for severed economic ties with Israel or its West Bank settlements—is a reprehensible criminalization of dissent

I am a citizen of Israel. I also wholeheartedly support a ban on the settlements, which I believe to be illegal, morally reprehensible, theologically misguided, and politically ruinous. So sue me.

No, really: Now you can.

As someone who cares deeply about the future of the Jewish state, I spent most of yesterday glued to the debate in the Knesset, which culminated in the passage of a law that would make it illegal to call for a boycott against the state or its West Bank settlements—with a “boycott” defined as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage.”

“An area under its control,” naturally, means the West Bank, or, more specifically, the Jewish settlements therein, which were never annexed and are therefore, officially and legally, not a part of the State of Israel. That’s an assertion with which none other than the mayor of Ariel, the fourth largest settlement, agrees: In 2001, when he sued the Israeli government for return of funds his municipality had paid in taxes, he noted that “the Ariel Local Council and the municipality, composed of residents of the region, convenes in the region and is managed from Ariel,” and is therefore not part of Israel proper. Amen.

And so, according to the new law, the statement I made in the first paragraph of this article makes me a criminal. So be it. According to the law, in calculating the sum of the damages I’ll be required to pay to whomever presses charges against me, “the court will take into consideration, among other things, the circumstances under which the wrong was carried out, its severity and its extent.” But what effect did this statement I just made have? What is its severity? What its extent? These are precisely the unquantifiable, amorphous, and maddening questions Israeli judges are soon likely to spend much of their time adjudicating. And for what? For a cheap gesture that sacrifices a pillar of democratic rule—freedom of speech—on the altar of politics. Everyone—even those who don’t support boycotting settlements; hell, even those who live in settlements—should find this law obscene.

As it turns out, the law’s iniquities aren’t limited to the geopolitical liberties it has assumed. During yesterday’s debate in the Knesset, Kadima’s Yisrael Hasson, a former high official in the Shin Bet, raised a good point. As of today, he quipped, any Israeli who wishes to deliberately avoid economic ties with, say, a butcher shop that sells treyf, is free to do so; in fact, Hasson noted, many religious Jews advocate such boycotts all the time. And a labor-minded liberal who wants to reject doing business with a company that exploits its workers is welcome to his opinions. But anyone who, based on a similar ideological objection, refuses to buy goods produced in the settlements is now breaking the law. This, Hasson rightly noted, is an absurdity.

The Knesset’s own legal adviser, Eyal Yinon, agreed. Calling the legislation “borderline illegal,” Yinon argued that its definition of boycott “is a violation of the core tenet of freedom of political expression” designed solely to “affect the political debate on the future of Judea and Samaria, a debate that has been at the heart of the political debate in the State of Israel for over 40 years.”

And affect it shall: As the blogger Roi Maor noted in the liberal online magazine +972, the law’s bend is entirely economic. “If the court will find that a wrong according to this law was deliberately carried out,” it reads, “it will be authorized to compel the person who did the wrongdoing to pay damages that are not dependent on the damage” actually done.

This means that the law places the burden of proof not on the plaintiff—which should be the case when one is suing for alleged damages—but on the defendant. It also means that all an activist must do to quash the opinions of those who oppose the settlements is file a suit. Organizations who oppose the settlements—which includes virtually all of Israel’s human rights NGOs—can now be stripped of their nonprofit tax status. Individuals who oppose the settlements can now be taken to court and forced to pay hefty legal fees to defend their freedom of speech. Under these punitive conditions, it is very likely that many will simply choose to remain silent.

This is how oppression works.

There is much more to say about the law. Each of its clauses presents challenges both legal and logical. But let us not waste time parsing words: Anyone who is passionate about Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state should stand up and denounce this law as sharply as possible. It must be repealed, and none of us must remain silent until it is.

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

I don’t have time to take apart LL’s screed but if he knew anything about law (which apparently he does not) the law distinctly DOES NOT make advocating a boycott within Israel a “criminal”. Yes he could be sued but that is by definition a civil, not a criminal action. If he lost he might have to pay damages but it is not criminalized.

I should note that US law prohibits companies from obeying the Arab boycott of Israel, but that has far stiffer CRIMINAL penalties against companies convicted.

Lastly, you should welcome the law as now you (or your ilk) should sue those who advocate boycotting Israeli Arabs as well for example advocating that Jews who own apartments in Tzefat should not rent to Arab students who come to school in Tzefat from the surrounding villages. I assume you would see this foregoing use of the law as laudable…

This is very much a two edged sword and (my apologies for mixing metaphors) I really think that those who voted it in may have opened a veritable Pandora’s Box when trying to address a very real problem, not only for Israeli businesses over the Green Line (who employ scads of Palestinians who get paid far more (100%-450% more) than they would get paid in Palestinian businesses) as well as the scandal of Israeli professors and grad students on the forefront of those advocating the academic boycott of Israeli universities (e.g., Niv Gordon at BGU).

A country has the right to defend itself against those who do it harm. As the late US Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson pithily noted, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

hg

Jason Msays:

July 12, 2011 - 1:14 pm

This law will just make it look like Israel is trying to stifle dissent. Not good.

Genesays:

July 12, 2011 - 1:29 pm

“I am a citizen of Germany. I also wholeheartedly support a ban on the Jewish businesses, which I believe to be illegal, morally reprehensible, corrupt and intended to exploit the true owners of this country – Aryans. My government didn’t ban this particular “freedom of expression” in 1933 and therefore Nazi Germany at that time was a democratic state”
If I understood bill correctly it bans CALLS for boycotts but not boycotts themselves. In other words if you personally, don’t want to buy a certain product from a certain supplier, you won’t be punished by this law, as leftists so loudly and wrongly insist. Therefore the “argument” presented by Hasson is just a fallacy.

One more point (if “left, progressively thinking” part of population could explain it to me). They claim that the true democracy is when the government protects rights of minorities – correct?. “Settlers” is a minority in Israel. But when the government of Israel issues the bill which (according to the same “progressive part of population”) intended to protect that minority the same people suddenly claim that this bill is anti-democratic. Could you explain such apparent contradiction?

Sloanesays:

July 12, 2011 - 11:19 pm

Putting aside the rants of the writer, it is disingenuous to encourage Israelis to move to the territories and then allow them to be penalized because of it. Should the boycotts extend to Hebrew University since much of that campus is across the line? How about boycotting the Old City? How about the Western Wall? Let’s make sure the boycotts transpire to that level as well.

And Israel is in a special case. Since most of the world’s nations abhor Israel, why not let them boycott ALL of Israel. If you allow Israelis to boycott their own country it just sends the message to the rest of the countries that hate Israel that they should just boycott Israel as a whole—I mean if the Israelis boycott themselves, certainly we should boycott Israel.

In my opinion, people are confusing democracy with rights. When one’s rights start trampling on another’s rights, then they get in the way of democracy. This is one of those cases. If it okay to have boycotts, would be okay for a restaurant in Jerusalem to choose to “boycott” Arabs. Or, would you be against that boycott?

Hershel (Heshy) Ginsburgsays:

July 13, 2011 - 3:12 am

“Hebrew University since much of that campus is across the line”.

Misleading and incorrect. Hebrew U. has two campuses one in the western part of J’lem on Giv’at Ram & the other in the central part on Mt.Scopus. The MtScopus campus was the original Hebrew U. campus (including the original Hadassah Hospital and the Medical School) going back to the 1920s, long before there was any “Green Line” dividing the city. During Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, Israeli forces managed to hold on to Mt.Scopus even as the Old City and surrounding neighborhoods fell to the invading, British-led, TransJordanian forces.

The 1949 cease fire agreement recognized Mt.Scopus as an Israeli held enclave within the TransJordanian captured territory and provided for the presence of a rotating Israeli police contingent there to protect the campus, hospital etc. This was Mt. Scopus’ frozen status from 1949 to 1967, that every two weeks the 200 lightly armed Israeli troops on Mt.Scopus would be rotated under UN supervision, traveling through the Mandelbaum gate up to Mt. Scopus and the contingent that was up there coming down. As part of the negotiations, there were vague TransJordanian promises that they would eventually allow the campus & hospital to reopen but those fell by the wayside much like the promise that the residents of the Old City’s Jewish Quarter would be allowed to return to their houses.

Having lost its campus Hebrew U. scrambled for any building it could get in the western part of the city, until eventually the Giv’at Ram campus was built in the 1960s. Ditto for Hadassah until the Ein Karem facility was built. After Israel regained full access to MtScopus in 1967, Hebrew U began to move various faculties back to MtScopus campus; it now houses the the Faculties of Law, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Similarly Hadassah reactivated and renovated its MtScopus hospital although the medical school remains in Ein Karem.

B”H What this boils down to is thought crime without commission of action, an abyss in which persecuetion legalized to preserve profibilty over preseverance; to wit Urban Aggravation, revolutiion and reestablishment of human dignity to international citizens everywhere.

pamela stonesays:

July 13, 2011 - 10:23 am

I will bless them who bless you,and I will curse them who curse you sayth the Lord of Host

Once again Liel entertains us with a rant that is supposed to make sense but in the end is just as misleading as the law itself. I am an Israeli living in Tel Aviv and I am tired of this kind of so-called debate.

He supports “a ban on the settlements, which I believe to be illegal, morally reprehensible, theologically misguided, and politically ruinous. So sue me.” Now we have it folks. Better to play the emotionally insane game of BOYCOTT rather then discussing the merits of any law that passes the Knesset. BTW, mag 972 is anything but “liberal”. It is infested with radical types that love to hate Israel including its founder.

Brucesays:

July 13, 2011 - 10:38 am

If you don’t like it, win the next election. Stop complaining and start campaigning to win. But ooh, maybe you can’t win because the majority doesn’t agree with you?

David Mattansays:

July 13, 2011 - 10:55 am

Ooh Bruce, guess what, the Nazis won the election in Germany in 1933, but that didn’t make it right did it…do you understand how democracy works? Do you understand what the Bill of Rights is? Do you understand that even an elected majority cannot do what it wants to anyone it wants in a democracy.
What if, Bruce, the US Congress decided to mutilate anyone called, just as an example you understand, BRUCE. Would you then say, tha’s ok, let the Bruces of the US go out an win an election.

babawawasays:

July 13, 2011 - 11:05 am

Why is it that when the voice of the left gets stifled it’s a stain on democracy and when the voice of the right gets stifled it’s justice? What’s with the double standard? Right now, Jews living in Israel live on ancient Jewish land – all of it. Don’t think you’re any more moral for living in Tel Aviv than in Kfar Tapuach. In the end, your friends the Arabs want it all, and they won’t give in even if you sacrifice your fellow Jews. Kudos to the Knesset. It’s about time your hate speech came with a price tag attached.

When Hitler came to power in Germany, thirty thousand Jews left. Some thought his rant against Jews was temporary and when there was a slight downtick in his ravings, ten thousand returned. Apparently one third of our people are gullible enough to believe that anti-semitism is a fiction and harbor sanctimonious ideas that hatred of Jews is a passing fad and therefore any protective measures are considered dubious, immoral and hysterical. I wonder what happened to those ten thousand. It is in the nature of the DNA of our enduring tribe to put up with these naive naysayers and their sanctimony. Thankfully, two thirds of us still maintain our sanity as we try to survive as a people in the face of our determined enemies who would like nothing better than to destroy us.

David Mattansays:

July 13, 2011 - 11:43 am

warren, are you commmenting on the wrong article? what on earth has your silly rant got to do with the odious boycott law in israel. are you perhaps suggesting that 30,000 liberals should leave israel (perhaps to go and live in the fastest growing jewish community in the world, germany [noch]), and that 20,000 should not return even if the right give assurances that they will by ok. please enlighten

Asherzsays:

July 13, 2011 - 11:54 am

Israeli Law In Line with U.S. Antiboycott Laws to Protect Israel

The Antiboycott laws under the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979 [as amended in August 1999] were written specifically to protect Israel from the Arab League and other Moslem countries.
On Monday, July 11, 2011 the Knesset [the Israeli Parliament] passed an Antiboycott law against those who promote and call to boycott Israel.
A look at the U.S. Antiboycott laws objectives, should be helpful in defending the Israeli law.
“The [U.S.] Antiboycott laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.”
The U.S. Laws Prohibits among others:
“Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
“Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
“Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
“Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.”
Acting against the U.S. laws is considered a criminal behavior and carry with it penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation.

Genesays:

July 13, 2011 - 12:45 pm

David Mattan, since you know how democracy works and realize that government has an obligation to protect minorities against oppression of majorities then you must support this “anti-boycott bill” rather than oppose it. Why? Because it intended to protect minority (“settlers”) (approx. 5% of population) against economical oppression from the majority (leftists and Arabs, who represent approx. 25% of population)

B”H Wednesday, July 13, 2011; I have posted in my writings at http://www.englishquickly.com. When the courts of America defend the rights of citizens, they treat the liberty of the individual as paramount and decisions can only be based on precedent, such that appeals question the ramifications of the law. The courts in Israel, the judges are enslaved by the politicians whose “security issues” create “panic mentality”, not to mention the politicians found guilty by reason of habitual corruption – but those empowered portray their political enemies as criminal and the fascism includes boycott of boycotts that are nothing more than the basic right of freedom to assembly. Look at the idiocy of not having applied diplomatic means to introduce the pro-Palestinian visitors the chalav and devash of Israel and brew in them love for the Jewish people. The Is. government should be held liable for anti-Jewish (Arab people are Semitic) violence against humanity- the murder of a child in NY the bombing of a Moscow Synagogue. It is imperative to through out a Foreign Minister who bounces the whole Turkish foreign ministry because his imbecilic impulses have no vision beyond his personal expressions of frustration, a failure!, as the government should be terminated quickly and in our days. As long as Israel’s war industry is profitable, those whom empower the State will thwart peace efforts so unilateral action will most certainly be taken, and we’ll be lucky to stay alive in what remains for the yidden a place in which to make their home in the holy land.

Dubalasays:

July 13, 2011 - 1:42 pm

I am sickened. I want to boycott everything from the settlements but they do their best to hide the labels. Any chance you could list companies so would could boycott from the States?

ron_woodwardsays:

July 13, 2011 - 2:01 pm

Considering Muslims to be fellow human beings, I wish them well. Jews and non-Jews have the right to free speech on issues of concern to Israel. Passing laws to discourage dissent is very probably a poor idea harmful to our democracy.
As an Israeli, however, I highly resent the implications of the proposed laws concerning dissent. Would they discourage the anti-Semites who howl for our blood? Would they extend the Jewish experiment by a single hour?
Fourteen-hundred years of oppression and 63 years of violence in Israel indicate an absence of peace in our future.
Ari Sharon said we would be ostracized no matter what we did. So, we may as well guard our rights to free speech.

elisays:

July 13, 2011 - 3:37 pm

The Boycott groups (BDS) usually want to boycott all Israeli products and Israeli institutions, and are actually trying to delegitamize the State of Israel.

They are willing to give their support to the enemies of the Jewish people in the name of some higher good (political ideology), just as the Jewish supporters of Lenin and Stalin gave their support for the destruction of Jewish communities in the Soviet Union and the persecution and killing of Jews for being Jews.

Hopefully, some of the BDS supporters (maybe even LL) will change their behavior before too much of an increase in the killing of Jews by Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah and other terrorists that they are supporting through the BDS actions.

Jonathan Fieldsays:

July 13, 2011 - 4:20 pm

Hermetic, paranoid, and delusional. That’s the bulk of comments I see here. It’s not a Zionism that interests me. Netanyahu positions himself as the protector of Israel against those who would delegitimize it. He’s doing their job. What ideals am I supposed to support for a nation that passes such a law? For years, Israel claimed it’s the only democracy in the Middle East. I’d ask a lot of the folks so angry at Liel’s article to answer this: beyond wanting to deny economic damage to the settlement movement, what are you frightened of? This is an ugly day for Israel.

Genesays:

July 14, 2011 - 12:30 pm

The bill is intended to protect Israeli minority (“settlers” – 5% of population) against economical oppression imposed on them by the majority (leftists, communists and Arabs, who represent approx. 25% of population, or 5 times more). Everyone who opposes this bill – opposes one of the main principles of the true democracy: it is to protect the rights of minority against the tyranny of majority.

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 4:53 pm

..
Knesset “Anti-Boycott Law” Analysis and Critique

Overview

On Monday, July 11, the Knesset passed the “anti-boycott” bill (translated below), which allows “citizens to bring civil suits against persons and organizations that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control.”

As explained below, NGO Monitor does not see this legislation as the appropriate means to combat the BDS movement. However, numerous NGOs have released misleading and false statements about the new law, including the New Israel Fund, which wrongly claimed that the bill “criminalizes freedom of speech,” and Gush Shalom, which says the law is “a death sentence for the right to freedom of expression.”

The anti-boycott law does not specifically address boycotts of “settlements;” it is meant to address calls for boycotts anywhere in and against Israel. The global BDS movement targets all of Israel, even within the Green Line, and explicitly rejects the existence of Israel within any borders.

cont

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 4:55 pm

cont.

rders.

The intense public debate and discussion about the new law is indicative of the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy, not its decline, as many political advocacy NGOs have claimed. These same NGOs are preparing to challenge the new law in the Israeli courts, another sign of a strong democracy. Furthermore, those NGOs could have lobbied MKs and presented alternatives, in order to stop the bill. Instead, they spend more time and resources lobbying European Parliaments in opposing Israeli government policy.

In addition, the intense attention from both NGOs and media regarding the new law again demonstrates an obsession and disproportionate focus on Israel. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, within hours of the bill’s passage, released a statement attacking the bill. In contrast, it took the organization nearly a week to comment on the April 7 murder of an Israeli boy on a school bus targeted by a laser-guided Hamas rocket. And HRW and other NGOs continue to underreport the atrocities in Libya, Syria, North Korea, and other totalitarian regimes in the region.

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:03 pm

cont.

The intense public debate and discussion about the new law is indicative of the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy, not its decline, as many political advocacy NGOs have claimed. These same NGOs are preparing to challenge the new law in the Israeli courts, another sign of a strong democracy. Furthermore, those NGOs could have lobbied MKs and presented alternatives, in order to stop the bill. Instead, they spend more time and resources lobbying European Parliaments in opposing Israeli government policy.

In addition, the intense attention from both NGOs and media regarding the new law again demonstrates an obsession and disproportionate focus on Israel. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, within hours of the bill’s passage, released a statement attacking the bill. In contrast, it took the organization nearly a week to comment on the April 7 murder of an Israeli boy on a school bus targeted by a laser-guided Hamas rocket. And HRW and other NGOs continue to underreport the atrocities in Libya, Syria, North Korea, and other totalitarian regimes in the region.
Main Issues

The “Anti-Boycott bill” (MK Ze’ev Elkin – Likud), that passed into law on Monday, July 11, allows “citizens to bring civil suits against persons and organizations that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control.”

NGO Monitor is concerned this new law is counterproductive, not the most appropriate framework, and will only polarize important discussions regarding the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The law will not shed light or encourage informed criticism on the NGOs and their foreign government funders that lead most BDS campaign. cont.

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:08 pm

cont.

Regarding other legislation in June 2011 dealing with foreign government NGO funding – MK Ofir Akunis’s (Likud) bill on limiting foreign government donations to NGOs and MK Faina Kirschenbaum’s (Israel Beiteinu) bill to revoke NGO tax-free status on donations from foreign entities – Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, stated, “However, the answer to this challenge [NGO use of foreign government funding] is not to curtail NGOs’ freedom of expression…Israel’s vibrant democracy does not merely survive criticism, it thrives and is improved by it, especially when much of this ‘criticism’ can be exposed for what it really is: disingenuous and ideologically motivated propaganda.”

In February 2011, the Knesset adopted the NGO Funding Transparency Law (MK Ze’ev Elkin – Likud). The objective of this law is to provide Israeli democracy and civil society with the information necessary to assess the extent and impact of secret foreign government funding for a narrow group of political advocacy NGOs, some of which promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Many of the NGOs that referred to the anti-boycott law as anti-democratic used the same language regarding the NGO Transparency Law.

Both the secrecy of these funding procedures and the manipulation of civil society by external groups and governments violate the accepted norms and practices among sovereign democratic nations.

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:10 pm

cont.

overeign democratic nations.

There is deep concern among Israel’s democratically elected representatives regarding foreign government funding of political advocacy NGOs that are centrally involved in delegitimization campaigns. This concern is also reflected consistently in public opinion polls.

The “Anti-Boycott Law,” and other legislation regarding foreign government funding of NGOs, is a response to the absence of basic policy changes among the European governments that are responsible for supporting the BDS movement.

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:13 pm

cont.

Law for the Prevention of Harm to the State of Israel through Boycotts – 2011

(unofficially translated by NGO Monitor)

Definition

1. In this law, “boycott of the State of Israel” – deliberate abstention from economic, cultural or academic ties with a person or with another body, only due to their affinity to the State of Israel, its institutions or an area that is under its control, in such a way that may harm him economically, culturally or academically.

Boycott – a civil wrong

2. (a) He who knowingly publicizes a public call for boycotting the State of Israel, and according to the content of the call and the circumstances in which it has been publicized there is a reasonable possibility that the call will lead to the imposition of a boycott, and the he who published the call was aware of this possibility, does a civil wrong and civil tort law [new version] will be applied to him.

(b) With regard to clause 62 [A] of the civil tort law [new version], he who causes a binding legal agreement to be breached by calling for a boycott against the State of Israel will not be viewed as someone who operated with sufficient justification.

(c) If the court finds that a civil wrong according to this law w

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:16 pm

cont.

(c) If the court finds that a civil wrong according to this law was intentionally carried out, the court is authorized to charge the civil wrongdoer with the payment of compensations that are not dependant on the damage (in this clause – damages for example); when determining the amount of damages for example, the court will take in to account, among others, the circumstances in which the civil wrong had been carried out, its severity and its scope.

Regulations pertaining to limitation on participation in tenders

3. The Finance Minister with the consent of the Minister of Justice and with the approval of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset, is authorized to set regulations as to the limitation of the participation in a tender, of he who knowingly publicized a public call for boycotting the State of Israel or he who has promised to participate in such a boycott, including pledging not to acquire products or services that are produced or provided in the State of Israel, one of its institutions or in an area that is under its control; in this clause “tender” – a tender that needs to be held according to the Law of Requirement for Tenders 1992.

Regulations pertaining to the suspension of benefits

4. The Finance Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Justice, is permitted to decide concerning someone who has knowingly publicized a public call for imposing a boycott on the State of Israel or he who has committed to participate in such a boycott, that:

(1) He will not be considered a public institution with regard to clause 46 of the income tax ordinance;

arcaneonesays:

July 14, 2011 - 5:21 pm

cont.

(2) He will not be eligible to receive funds from the Council for the Regulation of Gambling in Sports according to clause 9 of the law on Regulation of Gambling in Sports 1967; implementing the authority according to this clause requires the approval of the Minister of Culture and Sports;

(3) He will not be considered a public institution according to clause 3a of the Budget Foundations Law 1985 with regard to receiving support according to a budgetary clause; implementing the authority according to this clause requires the approval of the minister that has been assigned responsibility by the government for that budgetary clause, as stated in paragraph (2) above of the definition “person responsible for a budgetary clause” in the aforesaid law;

(4) He will not be eligible for a guarantee according to the Law of Guarantees on behalf of the State 1958.

(5) He will not be entitled to benefits according to the Law for Encouraging Capital Investments – 1959 or according to the Law for Encouraging Research and Development in Industry 1984; implementing the authority according to this clause requires the approval of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Employment.”

Implementation

5. The Minister of Justice is appointed to implement this law.

That’s the whole thing. Not really so bad.

lanasays:

July 16, 2011 - 12:44 pm

“jewish state” and democracy is oxymoron…Sorry but that contradicton it’s becoming more apparent to the world. Now Sue me for my freedom of expression…

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.